Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 669 - HC - CustomsRelease of bank guarantee - Provisional release of the orders of cars/ vehicles seized under section 110 of the Customs Act - Held that - appropriate orders for the release of bank guarantee and also consequential orders applying the law declared in Jatin Ahuja v. Union of India and Ors. (2012 (12) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT) would be issued in tune with section 110 of the Customs Act within a week. The statement of the customs authorities and the Dy. Commissioner is hereby recorded. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the bank guarantee and also issue consequential order as assured within two weeks - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Release of bank guarantee under Customs Act
Analysis: The petitioner sought the release of a bank guarantee issued in favor of the Commissioner Customs as a condition for the provisional release of seized cars/vehicles under section 110 of the Customs Act. The petitioner contended that since the statutory period of one year had expired under section 110 of the Customs Act and no show-cause notice had been issued under section 124 of the Customs Act, the goods should be released unconditionally. The respondent's counsel, on instructions from the Dy. Commissioner (Legal), assured the court that appropriate orders for the release of the bank guarantee and consequential orders would be issued in accordance with the law declared in a previous case. The court recorded the statement of the customs authorities and directed the respondents to release the bank guarantee and issue consequential orders within two weeks. The writ petitions were allowed based on the assurance given by the customs authorities. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the release of the bank guarantee under the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory timelines and issuing necessary orders in accordance with the law. The court's decision was based on the assurance provided by the respondent's counsel regarding the release of the bank guarantee and consequential orders within the specified timeline.
|